Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Engine Failure - Air Tanker - Rough Fire - Fresno
The tanker involved was Erickson Aero Tanker 101 under contract to the U.S. Forest Service fighting the Rough Fire East of Fresno, CA. They had an engine first after take off which led to a failure in the engine. Damage was to the plane and to a vehicle on the ground. Engine parts were found inside a vehicle which had its rear window shattered by debris from the engine. The crew lucked out in that the problem occurred during take off and not during a fire retardant drop. (www.fresnobee.com) Mais...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Used to be a very common thing years ago with the radial engines knew two pilots who flew the PB4Y2 and B25s among others. At least they didn't dump the load like they had to do years ago to keep from crashing. Would have been one red development for a while afterward.
Things happen... Another example of an UnContained Engine Failure.... I hate to see them, but they do happen...
A modern jet engine throwing parts has to be one of the rarest of events. It always seems like, wha... a jet engine???
Well, now we have 2 in a very short period of time.. Noting BA 777.
That's right, very odd. They don't mention the engine mfg. PW, GE or RR.
All DC-9's have JT8D engines, This a/c was a DC-9-87 which has some age on it. A/C was manurfactured in 1991, which is pre Boeing Merger. The engines are shown at "JT8D-219". Fromm the images it does not show any airframe damage, so a simple engine change will only take about 6 to 8 hours... Not a big deal.. I have done quite a few of them over the years. The JT8D is quite a good engine and can take a lot more than any CFM...
Jennifer Jones, a Forest Service spokeswoman with the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho said “It’s a big deal [the engine failure] to us because it’s one of our next-generation tankers,”
I know the tanker fleet is aging, but 1991 as 'next gen'?
I know the tanker fleet is aging, but 1991 as 'next gen'?
LOL, she does not know her airplane.... I guess it is Next Gen as compared to the DC-3 or C-47 but geez.... A lot of people will call a plane Next Gen if it has been upgraded to Glass Cockpit... But a DC-9 is not and has never been "Next Gen"... That plane is about timed out, but then again they are not really flying it pressurized as I cannot see them dropping a load from 41,000 Feet :) I admit that it is a big deal when things like this happen, but if we could control engines flying apart, I think that BA and British Air Tours would have chosen different times for their engines to fly apart.
The latest entry in the tanker field for USFS is the C-130 from USGG 1721, built in 1987. Went to work in June (I think) and has been working daily since then (and sorely needed).
Load dropping is more like 410 ft AGL.
Load dropping is more like 410 ft AGL.
I think the most impressive is the DC-10!
the 747 was pretty impressive... just sayin'
Hmm... If had seen that one, I think I would agree..
